i'm done. basically what that says, the cost of extraction dominated by that first step. everything else is small potatoes. if that's the case obviously got to look at twice as much, you spend twice as much money. therefore, sherwood to rule nearly always applies. i would point out that the seawater is not an occur. the reason it's not come we are not crushing and grinding seawater. it follows its own curve. lastly the uranium from seawater, and that is even better than what we would ever need to get you in order to fix it. that's because uranium in seawater is three parts per billion. and according to mr. sherwood, this would cost you $3 million per kilogram. japan said between 200, 12 and kilograms because it's not done

industrial so there's a fairly big window. the thing that is important is he made the first step. we made grays overread which absorbs it out of seawater. rather than pushing water through we let the ocean current just take care of this and if you must from time to harvest it and that we process it at that point, it's uranium content. the trick was we got around the first step. we made first step cheap, the second step dominates and if that's the case, sherwood's law doesn't apply. we do just the same. so the trick is i can always write the cost of something linear in the dilution, sometimes in -- the trick is you have to make it smaller. we make it small by being passive. they made it small after 20 or 30 years of work by making a passive. this is how you get around sure which rule and thereby get around it, and i would like to stress once more sure which rule

is a rule of thumb. it's not a law of physics and chemistry which has to be abided by. we just give you an example of how to get there. let me explain oh but how we do our cell. nearly as a disclosure, i got involved in this in 2003 when alan right to see her in the picture formed a company in tucson. i own a little piece of it. it turned into kilimanjaro. i still own a little piece but kilimanjaro is moving into a new area of actually getting further and further removed from having a direct stake in economic state in private startups. i think that's just fine because in a way i need to push this in a public arena because that's actually more important, that it is visible in can be done. our goal was to provide the first principle. we annecy stumbled into an

exchange rate which had of her remarkable feature. if it's dry it loves co co2 ando bind very tightly. when it is wet it gives it back. we could show that if we add pressure and made it what, the pressure at equilibrium would be 500 times larger than it was when it was dry. so we're taking advantage of the fact that the water chemistry with these resins changes the way it behaves. what we believe happens is, ma and they're trying to prove this in detail, that when it is wet you have and it is empty, it's carbonated. as you draw it out, the hydration cloud shrinks and that carbonate becomes less and less comfortable. at some point it pays to split

one of the remaining water into an age plus an and '08 minus mag a bicarbonate and hydroxide. that hydroxide really was co2 so by now we expose this to air, it will load up with co2 and be all bicarbonate but the moment i make it wet they all bicarbonate carbonate kimchee comes back and you have 10% co2 over the mixture. that co2 you can now move up, pull off. as you pull it off you drop back to the carbonate in the cycle repeats itself. what drives it is the drying of the system in the open air. if it didn't dry, we couldn't do it. so we are bound to consume water. yes, the materials you see in the photograph your we purchased this actually, this is actually and electrical chemical membrane where it is embedded into the sheet which are put into the shapes and forms. after we put it in the sheet yet 1.7 molds of charge per kilogram so we can hold on the order of

.8 moles per kilogram of co2 between absorption and desorption in the maximum swing. so the basic idea is we stand out in the wind. the system drive but it is a co2. i put in a box and i have the option. i can suck out there before i do anything and then make it wet and i 5% of an atmosphere of co2. alternatively i just make it wet and i've air with 5% of co2 in the. i can also absorb co2 into a brine now that it has converted. or i can just make co2 in which i might sell to the greenhouse. in the original version we actually call a vacuum, then compress the co2 after liquid, and that is where we spent all of our energy and that's why we spent 50 kilojoules or more of

electric power to evacuate the system. that would say if iran is against a a coal plant, one-third of the co2 i collected would be emitted at a coal plant as an emission. if i plug into a power plug, i would have 20% of my co2 reinvented at some distance power plant if iran against windmills of course. that much wouldn't happen. here is a small demonstration. you have these little filters and the air is pushed around inside the box and you can watch the co2 in the box going. then you can put wetlands in and they will refill it with co2 and later on we have, look it up on the internet, we have plans in there and they grow happily with co2 we can get off those things when they're wet and the whip with the outside. what we did is we made the air

do our work. the air carries kinetic energy and has plenty to it through the filters. we can't run fast but we can run thick. if you measure carefully you'll notice the air coming out of the back of her filters is a little cooler than the air coming in. that's where we paid our energy penalty. it is technically a very large energy penalty kick somebody pointed this out to me but i'm not paying it. if you hang a towel on a clothesline you are not paying the heat of evaporation, although somewhere somehow the air has paid for. we see it all the air moving through drops in temperature by about a degree. that's how would end up paying for. it all carries chemical but says that it wants to evaporate the water which is on the because the air is that saturate and in water. as a result we were extremely -- that's what i would like to do the demonstration. we are not working so well.

because the air is very humid, we cannot really work. the next question, the next problem is how can we get from these little things we just did in the laboratory to the full scale where you do with co2? we design and this is an artist's concept of an underlying design, and one timee a day. think of these as 30 panels up in the air, meter wide, two and half meters tall and exposed to the wind and they will load up any matter of an hour. so this thing rotates every minute, every two minutes. one of them is being removed asphalt and pushed into one of those boxes down there, so there's some robotic system going on which is going to do all of that. so this is the typical side of a one ton of the day you to we didn't start with one to a day. we started with a shipping container to see what we could stuff into. it's pretty much exactly turned out to be a ton.

so that is the size. if you have 100 billion of those you would collect 36 gigatons of co2. in the last 10 years yet to build every year 10 million units. you may ask is that a large number or is that a small number. well, we are producing 80 million -- that sets the scale. i would argue these things we can argue whether it's a car or one that hath our two cars or have a car. it's bigger involving but it's -- i would argue comparable. but another point, there's and i shall capacity behind shanghai which fills 39 such containers and they're probably on average more full than ours are. so the industrial capacity to do this clearly exist. the question is whether you can figure out a policy which will

give us that. but this is the scale we would need to operate if we wanted to do it all by ourselves. we decided to stay small because i have been struggling with this in the front of his car. cynically cheaper than this power plant on the other side of the picture. typical coal plant is today $1500 a kilowatt. a car engine, not this one from but a typical car engine is $10 a kilowatt. they don't last all that long, but mass production really has driven prices down. we feel that if you really want to push cost you have to go to mass production and drive isis down. around and think making these things bigger and bigger, we prefer to think of it as making more and more of them. that get you into this mass production of you. what we found when we wrote a paper on this topic, not in the concept of air capture but mass

production in general, the reason you wouldn't have done that is that the personal costs of running 10,000 small units like to car engines to replace a single power plant is unaffordable. so the only way you can massively paralyzed power plants is to have an incredibly high degree of automation. and tell recently this was not available that this is the existence proof that this is doable. this is a google car driving without a driver. so the technology for automating is right now coming online, so, therefore, i wouldn't scale up to large styles -- sizes. that's what drove us to this one time a bit immature you can actually drive the unit to where you want it. if it's not needed anymore you pack it up and drive somewhere else. if you need a lot of co2 in one place, and 10,000 of them have to be in one place and you could put about that many on a square kilometer without interference

of being too high. for cost issues and economic viability, and i'm going to punt. i'm telling you this right up front because i don't know the answer and i would argue you don't know what either and the critics don't know what either. cost of future technologies are absolutely unpredictable. take this example. in 1980 or so i pay $20 for my first one. i now pay about 10 cents. in 19 aei said i can check how this can be done at 10 since the u.n. has said he's crazy, or why don't you do it? so the answer is you cannot predict until it happens. so having a long discussion with the ultimate cost is, is ultimately hopeless. you can say first of the current cost are always large. cost of their capture by that i mean if i do everything just

perfectly, i can tell you certain things, i need so much energy i can add all that up. that doesn't add up to $15 a ton. so there's no underlying thing which is taking out and saying it has to be very expensive. but on the other hand, i can pretty i can get to the $30 i have claimed, my intuition tells we can get to. but that's the ultimate cost, not today's costs. and learning can give you a large difference. but i can do something else. i can tell you more than $100 a ton is not all that interesting to not in the long run. so we better figure out whether we can get below $100 a ton. if we can, this is a big player in the game because then for about 85 cents a gallon of gasoline i can get my co2 back. my price in gasoline has changed much more than that over the last few years. i keep driving my car. so that level could be absorbed

as much when one of dollars a ton. i think other technologies to substitute and we will give up on fossil carbon. [inaudible] >> when i started think about sequestration of dollars, i asked myself what my budget? i said the coal plants and our nuclear plants. if i take the difference i had back then in 1995, i had about $60 per ton. in other words, if i spent more than $60 a ton, the nuclear plant is cheaper. so i would argue once you get over $100 a ton, you start looking at biofuels, if you start looking at all those other options you upon the table, battery cars, it becomes more and more interesting to do that and less and less interesting to do this. i may be too aggressive, maybe it's $150 a ton but i believe somewhere around that level, the alternatives simply look too

good and we will phase out fossil completed. there's one exception. if climate change really hurt, we will pay any price to get that back, right? but we will not keep running on a technology where we have other alternatives if this is more than $100. if this is way below $100 it may well turn out to be the cheapest option. so that for me is roughly at shipping point. i can't guarantee you that, but it's a factor of 1.3. i'm confident about that number. so here's the technology, 6-under dollars a ton. when the company in 2008 estimated a first of the kind of august 250 but both of them by the way our first of a kind but if you talk to kilimanjaro, if you talk to peter eisenberger's

company, they all say we are below $100. i'll be the passes right out and tell you near $100. if you just want co2 region you anything but make the stuff wet and let it dry again i think you can do this well below $50 a ton, probably at 30 right now. your raw materials even less than that. i do want to point out the examples. they are like coming out of your pictures but 7000 times cheaper in the 20th century. got another factor, it is even cheaper since. windmills dropped 40. if we went from $600 to $6, we are actually there. so mighty is $600 number is i should not all that bad. because he to try something the first time and you actually explosives and i'm trying to

collaborate together with no technology and do nothing fancy and you came up $600, getting that 10 times cheaper doesn't strike me as all that hard. you can see the development in the company's, now they claim it and you can't prove it because they won't let you look at the details, they are already pushing towards $100 their outside investors to look at it and they seem to be convinced by these numbers. so i would argue we are on that track. how far that track will go nobody knows, but i also would argue i can't tell you that it couldn't go to $30 or less. i cannot see any obstacle which would say, you can't possibly do that. and sherwood's law is not a real option. so ultimately you want to now start doing something and co2 is and what available which makes it interesting to think of it as starting a business proposition around it. then you see, well, the price varies with location.

it can be as cheap as $50, as i was $300, a good rule of thumb is $100. in europe 100 euros. it's ultimately the transport distance which sets the cost. typically a local demand is quite small. we looked at it and it's like 50 times per day. it's not all that big but it is doable. so you have these merchant markets. you ship co two by truck and use for food production, refrigerator sal -- all sorts of things, welding supplies. car engines is to withdraw eyes. frozen co2. there are huge numbers of tiny applications. uf chemical commodities made with co2. those are probably off limits because they have a big plant right next of which makes a lot of co2, and you can't buy into

that. there's biomass production. a lot of people who want algie reactors, and their clothes and they need co2, and they actually, can get it from the air, what are you making this. dry and wet cycles, it fits very nicely with what we do. greenhouse, gets co2. why do people pay 100 euros? enhance oil and gas recovery, probably not where you pipeline but where you do exploratory work, where he has managed to pay for the pipelines yet. with a little premium you could take our co2 from the air. renewable fuels is another big market, and ultimately sequestration. ear sequence taken by a big role because it's needed because of the co2 has come from the air by the others you can sequestration in places you could never get

you any other way. it's a lot easier to convince people in the middle of australia or in the nevada desert that it's safe to put co2 writer than it is to do it under manhattan or washington. so the problem is co2 is made for people are and, therefore, the best sequestration both sides on their people. and capture took that away. and recapture can do it anywhere and thereby simplify a lot of those issues. and you can boost that from small markets. the market for greenhouse is not all that large. the market, the enhanced oil recovery starts to get big and ultimately you have the co2 emission reduction. so we think glass houses could be maybe worldwide 209 a year. it's not something venture capitalist are salivating over, but it gave you a starting point to do something.

there's now a small company wants to do just that. and has negotiated that to get the ip to do that. synthetic fuels i think is a big thing. the old dream is we run on hydrogen. we take water out of the environment, have renewable energy. we split a high water into hydrogen and oxygen, get the oxygen back in the air maybe and then we needed power in a car you consume that hydrogen and make the water again. if you give me see to him and makes the cycle easy. i paid more for the extra transformation but it's a lot easier to have a liquid on board of the vehicle that hydrogen. that is the damage done it this way. i can close the loop. the technology is filled with hydrogen and co2 to make any hydrocarbon success. they been around since the '20s and '30s. what's hard about is to get the price of the energy low enough

that it works. as a better effect if you're $30 per ton of co2, you at a quarter gallon of gas, you spent 2 cents per kilowatt water, you add it all for electricity to the price of gas. it's the electricity price which will tell you how this game will go. you can think of it like biomass substitute, right? you run pv, which is 30, 40 times as efficient as a bio photosynthesis, and you then run and electrolytes are to make hydrogen and you combined with co two you took from the air, then you have a synthetic fuel which as you combust it puts co2 and water back into the environment and the cycle is done. in my long-term vision on this issue to complementarity energy carriers. for the stationary application, electricity is clean. it's responsive, i turn on the

switch and things work. there's no emission of the point of consumption. there is no energy storage. it's very difficult to store directly. but you can make the electricity and a large plant and if that involves co2 you can easily capture if there. probably much more cheaply than going through and capture. give liquid fuels on the other side. are easily stored. for the front you might want to work out how much power you have are pouring into your car while you're at a gas station and filling it. it's horrendous power plant as your spelling that co2 into the tank. you can use it for on board transportation but you can also do it for electricity storage. uses a lot of that. but on the other end, capital investment and storage device is very small. sitting on a battery for a date

is a quarter per kilowatt hour. that's before i paid for the battery going away because you have to in the cycle if it doesn't work anymore. it's just for the interest i paid to have the battery. it has extreme high energy density. it's easily stored. but it does produce co2 at the point of use and, therefore, did and capture to close the cycle. with a capture i can have it. i just make the point again that that crummy candle just as 100 times the energy density than that nice lithium ion battery in the background. carbon-neutral energy systems to start with all sorts of energy sources. i sorted them from nuclear and renewable which are carbon free, to dirty carbon, carbon and petroleum which goes to the transportation sector which runs all our natural gas, would make

directly electricity as we do right now but also would make fancast which converts to liquid fuel. that goes into the mobile energy demand come and capture would have to get us into the internet to put into storage. similarly the co2 from electricity production would go into the storage. if on the other hand, you ran entirely on non-fossil energy, electricity has no carbon impact but you do some of it to make fuels which are now on the food chain in a way and a liquid fuel than would be used in the mobile demand, that would lead to a missions to the air which you market back up and then feed back into making more synthesis gas. so the cycle is close to the way. one time in its torch, the other time you don't and, of course, the real world would be some mobile over some of these various options. so let me conclude on a few

observations on the policy issue. i think one of the fundamental changes you get from air capture is an it makes a missions reversal. that's good in bed. you can't put a price on emissions. that's what does. if you in it and i don't like it, i can absorb it and laid on present you with the bill, i can exactly tell you what it costs me to counter this on your part. i can assign a cost to you. it is not a good reason to delay action. and the way people say it is immoral hazard because you now the ability to make of reversible so post away. but it cuts two ways. one moral hazard, i don't need to do with it, i can do with it later. the other one is, i just did it, what are you going to do about it? that you've now can fix. that is a fundamental change. if you listen to some of the

power utilities watcher in the coal sector they basically say we feel for you, we understand the problem, but you would want to pay what it costs to build a model. if you don't want to do with the problem, we will charge the air capture, you'd be surprised how fast and cheap that was. suddenly they have an incentive to deal with the problem which only comes in once they have a competitive which sets the price. is a capture is that it's easy to say trust me, it costs too much. we went through this discussion in the 1980s. once it was mandated and we had to do it, prices drop by an order of magnitude in a hurry. i suspect the same will happen here once you force it. one way to force it is to say if you don't want to do with it, there's somebody else who can do it on your behalf. that means you have to make it reversible. nevertheless i would sit at a capture is the capture of last resort. it is not something you two just

because it's easier to in a way it's the hardest. by definition it's the hardest because they get another technology which cost you more, clearly you would to air capture instead. but th the beauty is a can and a missions from any and all sources. i do have to ask how did you manage to make the co2. i can say we say, how much co2 did you make? i can get it back. that's the first advantage. it sets an upper limit on the cost. you can deal with anything you now know can't get worse than that. that would be incredibly valuable to know and, therefore, think there's a real value in finding the price of air capture by doing it. that's the only way to find that out. it assures the visibility of -- you can avoid -- here you can ask ago 20 and you can mop up what you did in the past because it did make a missions reversible. it provides a solution to the

risk of leaky storage. we been talking back and forth about what happens if you put on the ground and it comes back. one answer is, well, right now comes back right away because we never put underground in the first place. the other part of course is the damages could the oil countries have except that because otherwise they wouldn't enhance. so what's left is it gradually leaks back and you didn't get anything for your money. but if i can monitor, i can say okay, so you have to get it back. ..

>> the way i -- i would -- years ago we wrote a paper on this, dick wilson, hans and i, where we argued you really want certificates of sequestration. and rather than figuring out who made it where and what, we go all the way to the source and say have you extracted a ton of carbon from the ground as oil or gas or coal, you need to show us a certificate that you or somebody else put another ton of or carbon already -- [inaudible] and the long-term promise is those two things will balance. you want to dig up a ton, you need a certificate of sequestration. in the meantime, we need some transitional phrase because overnight we cannot create that

many certificates of sequestration. air capture can play, and i will argue air capture will set the price of that because that's the method of last resort. so i would argue you back permits with air capture-based sequestration, and suddenly you are in business, and air capture sets the carbon price worldwide. >> [inaudible] once again, what do you mean by a back permit? so you said for past commissions? the term "back permit." >> a backed permit. you back it up. you actually -- the way we originally said this is we have a certificate of sequestration which is the equivalent of a gold copy. somebody actually did something to put carbon away. then we said you can get a permit, that's a temporary thing, a bridge to bridge between where we are today and where we want to be. and the permit is like a dollar

bill. it's not covered by anything. it's fiat, right? so the carbon board can print as many as it these to keep the price at a reasonable level. now, the carbon board could now turn around and say we start backing them up by actually putting co2 away. so we go back on the gold standard. [laughter] it actually turn out if you start thinking, that carbon board looks more and more like a federal reserve. [laughter] right? but that, that -- because in a way it is a funny currency, right? and so we argued then that a if you put air capture behind that, you actually know where the price will end up. it will end up at the price of air capture, and anybody who is cheaper gets the represent of being cheaper, right? and so the coal guys will do that, right? by the way, they only got 80%, and the last 20% they still get through air capture because at

that point it got too expensive, right? and you can balance all of this out, and in the end you can say that now if a government decides it wants to have negative emissions, all it has to do with rip up certificates of sequestration, and you are there. >> [inaudible] i'm not following -- >> right now in this picture -- oops, now i did horrible. can you help me there and get me back into the right mode? because i don't have the buttons here. right now if you want to extract a ton of carbon out of the ground, you have to show me a certificate of sequestration which is now retired. if some government decided that they simply buy them up and retire them without having any carbon coming out of the ground, you have created a negative emission. >> i guess maybe i'm missing a step here. right now there isn't a requirement. >> right now there isn't. in a future where there is such

a requirement, right? if you know create, if you know create a market for more certificates of sequestration, then you have pulled carbon out of the ground because somebody comes in and purchase them and doesn't use them. for example, a government, right? as you tear them up, right? you basically shorten the availability of permits for the -- >> [inaudible] >> by retiring them you actually, you actually create negative emissions. which have nothing else to go against, so you could get into a world where we say we now have a goal of getting back half a ppm a year. >> this, would this not work similarly to a cap and trade with carbon offsets where the air capture is a massive carbon offset program? >> yes, it would. it is very similar. and i find it very interesting, half of the people will tell me

what you just told me. the other half say this is a tax. >> [inaudible] >> and in a way, we are right in the middle, right? between the two extremes in a way in the early days that carbon board has the ability to print permits which are not covered, and it thereby can set where you want to be. and i think the european trading actually show ised the problem. it's a little bit like saying through the federal reserve we are now going to set the interest this perpetuity, right? so we set the carbon cap way in advance, and then the economy did a somersault, and suddenly nobody needed that carbon cap, and so the price collapsed, right? so if you have somebody who can actually maintain that availability, you get a much smoother ride. and that was our idea. now, a colleague of mine, miles allen in oxford, suggested that

in the beginning you should just, just have to buy one carbon certificate per hundred coming out, and then that gradually ramps up, right? that, i think, does disadvantage renewable energy because they don't get that benefit. but that's a detail worthying through. so -- worth thinking through. >> [inaudible] >> you are rebooting. please don't. [laughter] okay. i think our industries in general will find alternatives to air capture, and that's a good thing. you can go to renewable and nuclear energy, so you didn't need it. you can do points as capture, and you can have close cycle liquid fuels with the air capture, and all of that would get you out of the ccs. air capture, as i said, acts as a competitor and deals with all emissions. so the competitors occupy

sectors and inches. what's left over, and i would argue the airplanes are left over and probably the cars, is what's left to air capture. i think in conclusion, i think it's worth pursuing, air capture. it's a powerful tool for fighting climate change. it outperforms biomass capture. as a matter of fact, those trees for an equally-sized tree, we are collecting about a thousand times as much per unit of time as a tree, and it could be an important policy tool in creating carbon reductions. there's no physical reason why it could not work. the -- it's not an extrapolation from conventional technologies which do not work. it's therm no dynamics does work out. it's carbon negative already with coal. technical feasibility has been demonstrated, and very similar processes are routinely deployed in other industries. if you think about it, any illiquid faction plant removes

the co2 from the air before it goes in. the aps process is six times too expensive, but it is a first of a kind. and it is a very brute force technology using calcium carbonate as an intermediary. i think mass production can drive cost reductions. learning curves in other fields have reduced costs a hundredfold, and several companies already claim low cost, and the fractional cost is actually very low. so i see it as a high-risk, high-return investment. and i think the risk schmitt gated by limiting unit size of, unit scale of operations. i think for $30 million you can build functional prototypes. you don't have to go to power plant scale before you know it works. and the return is amplified by worldwide applicability. once you have figured it out, you can do it anywhere. and it's also amplified by

motivating other options because you now have actually set, put down a challenge. and i think small markets allow you to bootstrap. but they are small, and they are difficult. and and policy intervention would, i think, actually be a long-term thing. so i think what i want in the long term is, and that's what i'm working on now, is building an air capture center that demonstrates the technology and integrates these brand new ideas into academia. you want demonstrations, you want field-deployed prototypes which actually work, work all the time and establish rapid prototyping capabilities so you can build up and improve and improve. and learn by doing in many it rations because i think -- iterations because i think that's what it takes. there's a lot of science which we don't fully understand. this is a new separation technology. it's very different from others, and we are still beginners at it. and this is new to separation

science, to systems engineering. the scaling story alone is a whole big story in its own right. and ultimately, it's about sustainability signs and how humans interface to all of that, and you need the policy outreach. and i snuck in there, there's an ip pool which needs to be managed, and if we are not careful, it will fragment so finely into small companies that nobody can do anything. so all of that needs to be solved, sorted out and worked out. but i do think that new ideas can change the world, and they are off unpredicted, unmodelled, and they change the course of future societal developments in very unexpected ways. and i think this one has similar disruptive nature. at this point i think i've gotten through my main section, and if you have questions and debate points, i'm more than happy to entertain them. and i think i already have a first one there. [applause] thank you.

>> actually two questions. i'm jan -- [inaudible] resources for the future. first question is, what inventions are needed, technical inventions are needed to make this a possibility. and the second is not related in one sense, but it is in another sense. could this be tried in a state, for instance, in the united states where an experimental nation? >> the second answer is, yes. because i just said $30 million will get you a prototype. you could take that as a guess, right? that is certainly within the range of a state. and if i had my druthers, it wants to be a desert and dry because my particular technology works particularly well in such ap environment, right? so that's a good start. so i could see that.

to ask what inventions are necessary, let me, let me sort of give you a first rah rah answer, and then i'll try to get more nuanced. the first answer is we have made the invention. it works, right? and i think there's some truth to that. on the other hand, if we want to stay as small as we are, we better have a large degree of automation. we will only work in certain climates with our technology, and you want to get much broader than that. you would like to get much more efficient than we are. i think to come back to this picture, we look about like this. if that. right? we're not yet a car. we're still a horse-drawn wagon. so to get from where we are to something which is really well done is a very long way.

but if you had asked daimler or benz what inventions it takes to get to your toyota prius, they probably couldn't have answered you either. so there will be a lot of inventions, but i think the stick figure version of it is working, right? but from there to having a true breakthrough and having it happen on large scale, i can give you an analogy. in 1930 five people wrote papers saying jet engines in airplanes cannot work because they cannot carry their own weight. in 1938 it happened. in 1950, the first commercial plane was built. so time constants for that, in my view, are on the order of a decade or so. and once it's running, it takes two or three decades to really get big. and i can give you plenty of examples of that. yes.

>> i'm jeff -- [inaudible] i think probably the biggest difficulty i see is the economic feasibility coming down the curve. you point out the lightbulb and how things, technology's improved, but in those cases there was a pretty obvious economic drivers, and i think that's missing here. i just got an e-mail from my brother who's -- i'm an earth scientist, he's a mechanical engineer, and he sends me a graph of carbon in the atmosphere over gee geologic ti. it averaged 3,000 parts per million in the pail sowic, 1500 in the mess so sewic, it's been less in the tertiary. so what's the big deal? we're at 300, 400? the earth is tolerateed 5,000 in the past. these are the people we have to convince. how do can you, how do you -- >> well, it's, it's hard.

but to start with, you've got to move because there was no ice on the planet back then, right? so the ocean was 70 meters higher, right? so that's the first thing. the second thing is we involved, and my daughter asked me recently what would be my scariest thought about climate change. i said, we are designed -- we have a body temperature, a core temperature around 37 degrees, our skin temperature better be 35. if it's not, we overheat. we can get rid of thermal heat by sap rahtive cooling. it turns out nobody on the planet -- nowhere on the planet is the due point temperature above 31 degrees c. warming models suggest that with every degree warming, you get a three-quarter degree increase in the temperature.